Categories

January 15, 2009

Crux of the Problem

Of the few -- and I mean very few -- who have made an attempt to defend the way the Rangers handled the Michael Young situation, it's interesting that not one of those columnists/reporters/bloggers actually talked to Young himself.

What that tells me is that they have one side of the story, that is, if they've talked to general manager Jon Daniels. And they're buying into his version, or his side of things.

I repeat, the crux of this situation isn't about Young moving to third, although you could debate that point, too. It's about whether he was paid the proper respect in the process. Clearly, he believes that didn't happen. That's what made him angry and got his back up.

This isn't about the economy -- and trying to put the baseball economy into real life terms just doesn't work -- and it's not about another money-grubbing player. This is Michael Young, for heaven's sake. He's got his money already and will be paid no matter what. It's about how a team handles a special, valuable player -- a player the Rangers chose to make the face of the franchise -- to make something like this palatable and acceptable.

The Rangers failed miserably in that effort and they're taking the PR hit because of it.

TrackBack

Comments

Wow, um a little biased there aren't we Reeves? I love MY but this is just a temper tantrum. So the Rangers hurt his feelings? Who cares what MY feels like, he is an employee just like anyone else, oh wait we all need to bow down when he walks in a room, right?

Friendship is one thing, business is another. This is a business decision. He is an aging SS with terrible range who won a joke of an award. When he achieves HOF numbers he will get HOF respect otherwise he is just another player. They showed him respect by paying him a TON more than anyone else would, where is his respect?

You and Grandpa Urine (what an excuse for a writer he is) deserve to be at the same paper. You were a real reporter at one point but now I guess your feelings get in the way. What a shame that I have no choice for Ranger coverage, pathetic.

Reeves, this attempt to justify your opinion and that of the few who apparently agree with you and Galloway, is pathetic at best.

The crux of the problem IS about Young moving to third. I don't care if Young's feelings are hurt, or that he's worked so hard to become as good as he can be at SS. I watch the Rangers as a team, and follow the Rangers not just Mike Young.

Apparently, Daniels should have kneeled at Young's feet and begged Young to consider moving to third.
That's crap and you know it Reeves, use some common sense instead of just aimlessly taking shots at Daniels, etc. Young should WANT to make any adjustments necessary to make the team better, and this move would almost certainly make the team better defensively.

I hope your next blog entry is better than your last two attempts, as both have been a huge waste.

Jim, put your big boy panties on. Why in the world does Michael Young have to be coddled so much? Why, all of the sudden, does it sound more and more like Michael Young is a chick on Desperate Housewives? Is he really as sensative as you make him out to be?

Good grief. I'm glad I don't have a bunch of these panty waste working for me. If Young's feelings are hurt by what JD may have said to him, then he would hate working for me. Maybe this is one of the problems with the Rangers...everyone is too damn soft in the head.

I could care less what Michael Young thinks about where the Rangers are going to play him. They make that decision. Period. What a panzy.

Young is a good player being grossly overpaid comapred to his peers. He doesn't own the team and he isn't the GM and he isn't the MANAGER. Shut up and do what they tell you to do. It is really that simple.

I don't even see a hint of "disrespect" by telling Young he would now play 3B. Young's "fine line" that was crossed has more to do with the line between femininity/masculinity.

I don't think any of the name-calling is appropriate - go to the DMN blog to do that!!

Jim - I'm sorry but I thnk there's a difference between defending the (St)Rangers and trying to figure out how they should have done what needs to be done. Gold Glove aside, how should they have made this move? I've asked in virtually every place I've visited - including an email to Gallowsway this morning. If you ask him to move and he says no, they're really screwed. Sorry, there's no good way to do this. I do agree with Galloway that Washington should not have been there.

Paid the proper respect. Surely you are kidding. I didn't think Young was the type to expect people to grovel at his feet.

Since you're afforded the luxury of being able to get Michael Young's take on the situation, why don't you ask him why he was so defensive when asked about a position switch last spring? "I'm a shortstop, period" is what he said.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think Young would have been more receptive to this move with a little groveling, begging and pleading. This is complete selfishness on his part. Probably because his numbers are going to take a hit when compared to other third baseman, instead of second baseman, and his All Star days are over.

If you think this has anything to do with the Rangers, or anyone but Michael Young, you are mistaken.

And Jim, that was clearly a shot at Gil LeBreton, who is looking like the only credible Rangers writer at your newspaper right now. His column was well thought out and encapsulated what most fans are thinking about Michael Young right now. "Quit crying! You want to see problems, check out the GM plant." You really owe your colleague an apology with that shot.

Thank God we have enough of our sports media, like Reeves, Galloway, and Hitzges, on their knees to service MY so that the GM and ownership of the franchise can actually worry about what's best for the franchise.

MY is a slightly above average player being paid like a superstar. He is already clearly in decline, and will never again hit like he did in 2005. The Rangers should never let a 750 OPS SS with no Range and no ability to go to his left set terms on where he is going to play.

If the team does not want to move Young in season to 3B to give him as much possible time to become comfortable at 3B, and Andrus is expected to be ready some time this season, when are they supposed to move him?

Giving Young on option to move does no good. What if he says "No"? Does the team then magically decide they are not going to try and improve the defense for the left side of the infield? This is not a decision to be made from the player level, but is a decision to be made at the organizational level.

Last year the left side of the infield was the worst defensively in all of baseball as a total unit. As much as you have complained about the the pitching staff, the easiest fix would not to be to retool the entire rotation, but to build a decent infield defense behind them. You can not do that with Young at SS.

I am disappointed that the ST is going to be the only source of local baseball newspaper coverage and I am rather discouraged at how poorly the ST has covered this story. I am curious in how some of the local writers can disagree with all of the national, regional and remaining local beat writers. The staunch anti-management stance is becoming obvious and is leading to more and more Ranger's fans going elsewhere for their Ranger's coverage.

(Earlier blog post) "OK, I think we've all pretty much agreed that the Rangers bungled the..."

------

But in reality you have gotten agreement out of the fans that Young is being too sensitive and you are going to far defending him. I realize you do not read these comments or else it wouldn't seem to the readers as if you are on a different planet, however you should consider the fact that Young is not connecting with the fans and you are wrong. And by the way, since most everyone else has mentioned it, I agree that Galloway is terrible.

If the public who disagrees with Young's reaction have, as you, Reeves, contend, just been exposed to one side of the situation, wouldn't that be your fault for not better explaining Young's side? That's all you have been doing since the story broke. A far better journalist would actually, you know, try to get both sides of the story instead of lashing out at those whom disagree with you as being of a "very few" or uninformed.

I would instead contend we've had both sides of the story, and have decided to formulate our opinion however we have, irregardless of what your opinion is. Why does that trouble you?

Great to see so much reaction here.
Two quick points:
1) There is no problem between Gil and I. We've been friends for over 30 years. Occasionally we have a difference of opinion over something in the sporting world. I'm happy that that allows us to have some balance in our opinions in the sports section.
2) The Rangers have alienated their longest-tenured, highest-paid and most highly respected player. That's what this is about, not the move to third, which was a foregone conclusion when they traded for Elvis Andrus. This was something and could have and should have been avoided. Anyone who knows Michael Young knows he can be reasoned with and expected to do what's right for the team if something is presented to him in the right way. I have no doubt that he will wind up at third base and that this will blow over. But with the respect Michael has throughout baseball, this did not make the Rangers look good.

Blogs like this offer an opportunity for a variety of opinions. Most of my e-mails have been running exactly opposite of most of what I've been reading here, so it's good to get a feel for both sides of the issue.

The best thing, too, is that for the most part, each and every one of us want to see the Rangers succeed.

You assume that there was a way to keep from alienating Young. And what you proposed was, basically, coddle him, baby him, and ultimately, if that didn't work, give in to him. It's what you said in your first article. If Young says no, then forget the whole thing.

That's the thing I have a problem with. He shouldn't have to be babied or coddled. He's a grown man. And Daniels should never, ever give in if he believes moving Young to third is what's best for the organization.

Actually, Young has lost a lot credibility by even placing the blame on the way it was handled. He has personal motives for not wanting to move off shortstop, and Young is trying to use the way Daniels handled it as an excuse. As much I've liked Michael for a long time now, that's just lame.

Revo, you know from my frequent texts I think Jon Daniels is a complete idiot but I think Michael Young gets paid well enough that I don't care much whether his feelings are hurt or not. My problem with the Rangers is that it seems Daniels finds a new way to mess up whatever is going in the team's favor and that ain't much since Daniels took over.

What I have a problem with is letting Andrus and his 32 errors wear a big-league uniform right now. But, what do I know. I was a newspaper photographer for 30 years and you columnists know we don't know much.

Why do I get the feeling that if Nolan Ryan had been in JD's shoes, and had handled the situation exactly as JD did, you and Galloway would be falling all over yourselves talking about how Young was pouting and not showing the proper respect to the organization that had committed so much in money and publicity to him?

When the Rangers start winning pennants, I will thoroughly enjoy watching you two crawfish and try to explain how it is because Nolan and Young saved the franchise and won in spite of JD instead of giving JD credit for building a long-term winner in North Texas. Pathetic.

JD: Michael, would you consider moving to 3B?
MY: No
JD: Would you think about it and get back to us?
MY: No
JD: Well, we would really like to bring up Elvis so that he...
MY: No
JD: OK, well we just wanted to ask. Thanks for joining us for lunch.
MY leaves the room...
JD: Ron, what do you think we can do now? Do you remember how many balls got through up the middle last year? Do you think Borbon and Beltre are fast enough to cover all three OF positions and we could move Josh up behind 2B?
RW: I'm working on positioning our players according to the pitch selection. I heard it could help our defense. Also, we can tell the pitching staff to not allow any balls to be hit up the middle. That'll help.
JD: Ron, I think my idea has a better chance of working.
Nolan walks in...
NR: JD, how did it go?
JD: He said "No"
NR: Well crap! Now what? Did you tell him how much we love and respect him?
JD: Do you think that would have done it?
NR: No, but the only other thing is, well...we could...tell him to move.
JD/RW in unison: Did you ask the local media if that would be OK? Did you ask the fans?
NR: No, do you think I should? Maybe if some of the print guys asked Micheal? Do you think that would do it?
JD: Well, I think we're just going to have to suffer through another year. Oops, 5 more years. Sigh...
NR: Have you guys thought about telling him to move for the sake of the team?
JD: No...not a chance.
NR: Well, crap! Both of you guys were on your knees when you asked, right?
RW: Yeah, and I almost couldn't get up.
NR: OK, Ron, pencil me in at 3B. I'll come back for the team. But you'll need to bring up Travis to play 3B when I'm on the mound.
JD: I still think my Josh idea has a better chance of working...

The above post was the greatest post i have ever read.
Now to my post, that is not even in the stame stratosphere.

Reeves you are a f'n idiot. This is ALL ABOUT Pride, not about what is best for the team...And I'll take a quote from Pulp Fiction,
"That's pride f'n with you...F Pride. It only hurts, it never helps...."

Think there is anyway you can give me Young's cell number so I can call him and talk to him, that way I'm as important as you? No? well you keep waving your media badge around like its your ticket into heaven...seriously, screw you buddie. You have completely lost my respect.